Stelluti v. Casapenn Enterprises Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained скачать в хорошем качестве

Stelluti v. Casapenn Enterprises Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Stelluti v. Casapenn Enterprises, LLC | 1 A.3d 678 (2010) In Stelluti versus Casapenn Enterprises, the New Jersey Supreme Court considered the validity of a waiver of liability signed by a health club patron who was injured in a spinning accident. Gina Stelluti decided to join Powerhouse Gym. She signed a waiver and release form acknowledging that she agreed to assume all risks of injury caused by exercising there. Then Stelluti went straight to her first ever spinning class. The instructor showed Stelluti how to adjust her seat and helped attach her feet to the pedals. Then class began. Evidently, the pin that held the bike’s handlebars in place hadn’t been properly secured, though this wasn’t apparent just from looking at the bike. When the instructor told the students to stand up on the pedals, Stelluti stood, and the handlebars came off. Stelluti fell forward with her feet still strapped to the pedals. She cracked her tooth and hurt her neck, shoulders, and legs. For the next three years, Stelluti suffered persistent pain from this accident. Stelluti sued Powerhouse and its owner, Casapenn Enterprises, alleging that Powerhouse had been negligent in setting up the bike and instructing her. Powerhouse invoked the waiver of liability and asked for summary judgment. The trial court found for Powerhouse and dismissed Stelluti’s claim. The appellate division affirmed, holding that the waiver could excuse Powerhouse only from ordinary negligence, not reckless, willful, or wanton behavior, but that because this accident was the result of ordinary negligence, the trial court was correct to award summary judgment. Stelluti appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court. She argued that the exculpatory agreement was an unconscionable contract of adhesion and that enforcing it was against public policy. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stellut... The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stellut... Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Facebook ►   / quimbeedotcom   Twitter ►   / quimbeedotcom   #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries